“Israel-Palestine has become sort of tribal and a touchstone for a certain portion of the intellectual classes.”

Ian McEwen

British novelist

It’s a bit like an Israeli Davos.

In mid-June, Israeli President Shimon Peres will host members of the global intellectual elite at the Presidential Conference in Jerusalem. Bill Clinton and Tony Blair will co-host the event, “Facing Tomorrow,” which is intended to focus on the ability of human leadership to effect change on pressing global issues.

A few days later, letters and comments started leaking. Professor Hawking, it seems, was pressured to snub the conference by an academic squad — including the American Noam Chomsky, British Jonathan Rosenhead and Palestinian Omar Bharghouti — that regards the isolation of Israeli institutions and academics as the highest priority action globally. As Hawking stated: “I have received a number of emails from Palestinian academics. They are unanimous that I should respect the boycott. In view of this, I must withdraw from the conference.”

Much ink has been spilled in the last two weeks about the meaning of it all. The viewpoints have been well-covered by others writing from every perspective possible.

Pause, however, and consider the language used by those who regard such developments to herald all things good. This is now the company that Stephen Hawking keeps. When they speak about Israel — or any individual or institution who supports the existence of Israel — the language used is, to be polite, extreme. There is no nuance, complexity or subtlety. There is also no space, in their world view, for anyone of sound intellect and who is progressively inclined to support Israel in any manner. They have hijacked the language of progressive liberalism in support of ideological tyranny. Israel is demonized, obsessively.

As one prominent left-leaning British blogger, James Bloodworth, commented on May 9: “There’s no need to be an apologist for the Israeli occupation of the West Bank to question where professor Hawking’s moral compass was when he chose to visit these two serial human rights abusers (Iran and China) — and ask why it has suddenly appeared when the country in question is Israel.

“Is Israel uniquely bad, or has hypocrisy towards the Jewish state become so widely accepted among some progressives that even an eminent scholar like Hawking is susceptible to hypocritical and lazy double standards?”

British academics have led this determined boycott effort for decades, and were highly critical of acclaimed author Ian McEwan, who visited Israel two years ago to accept the prestigious Jerusalem Prize. His comment? “(There were many countries) whose governments we might loathe or disapprove of” but “Israel-Palestine has become sort of tribal and a touchstone for a certain portion of the intellectual classes.” Hmmm.

Syndicated columnist Glenn Greenwald, writing last week in the Guardian, praises an article by Israeli leftist writer Noam Sheizaf in 972 magazine on the Hawking affair, but glides over his comments on language:

“I have felt alienated by the language and tone of many pro-Palestinian activists. Often I feel that they reject my Israeli identity as a whole, sometimes even my existence. Many even refrain from using the name ‘Israel,’ leaving very little room for joint action or simply meaningful interaction.”

The Hawking-Chomsky-Rosenhead-Bharghouti axis is on a mission. Their posturing vilifies Israel and anyone who dares support the right of the country to exist.

It doesn’t take an astrophysicist to read between the lines of such visceral hatred. When such flawed, obsessive rhetoric passes, for a moment, as being worthy of discussion, it is a very worrisome portent for liberalism, democracy and free thought.

When an intellectual of Stephen Hawking’s stature chooses to ally with such people we should all pay careful attention.

Either he is right, or something is very, very wrong.

Vivian Bercovici is a Toronto lawyer and professor with a postgraduate diploma in Mideast politics. Her column appears monthly.